Out Now: Doctor Who Magazine #516

A new era begins in the latest issue of Doctor Who Magazine, which not only welcomes in the Thirteenth Doctor, Jodie Whittaker, but also new editor, Marcus Hearn.

In her exclusive interview, she says:

“Chris [Chibnall, new showrunner] wouldn’t have cast me as the Doctor because he wanted me to repeat anything that had gone before. And I think as a fan you don’t want to watch something that’s an imitation of something that’s gone before. Or what would be the point of recasting?”

It’s a shame that she has to defend herself straight away, but is it necessary? I guess we’ll see…

Also in this issue:

  • Casting Jodie: DWM asks what the arrival of Jodie Whittaker means for the future of Doctor Who.
  • Monsters Inc.: We go inside the workshop of Millennium FX, with previously unseen designs and photographs from the making of the 2017 series.
  • Now We Are Six-Hundred: Former showrunner, Russell T Davies talks about his illustrations for BBC Books’ collection of Doctor Who
  • I Am (Not) Bill Potts: Nicholas Briggs reveals the secrets of giving voice to the Mondasian Cybermen.
  • Hank Marvin?!: Legendary Shadows guitarist, Hank Marvin discusses his surprising links to the Doctor Who
  • The Aztecs: Take a fresh look at the 1964 classic, The Aztecs in The Fact of Fiction.
  • Trevor Baxter: We pay tribute to the late Trevor Baxter, who played Professor Litefoot in 1977’s The Talons of Weng-Chiang, with contributions from Tom Baker, Louise Jameson, Christopher Benjamin, Lisa Bowerman, and more…
  • The Parliament of Fear: A brand-new comic strip adventure continues for the Twelfth Doctor and Bill Potts.
  • Trail of a Time Lord: An exclusive extract from Red, White and Who, the forthcoming book about the history of the series in the United States.

PLUS! Previews, book and audio reviews, news, the Watcher’s column, prize-winning competitions, and much, much more.

Doctor Who Magazine #516 is on sale now, priced £5.99.

  • FrancoPabloDiablo

    Disappointingly one-sided letters section this issue – not surprised in the least though! Very selective in the ones they printed.

    • Rick714

      Just curious as I have not read the magazine in a while—there were no negative letters what so ever? Or was it in the 80/20 positive lean?

      • FrancoPabloDiablo

        Mostly people LOVING it with a few who were unsure but are now LOVING it and a couple who are still unsure but willing to give it a chance. Not ONE that openly dismisses it and is dead against it.

        • Rick714

          I’d like to get an accurate breakdown of where people stand on it. What *actual* percentage is hating it and is just absolutely done with DW forever–finito—and won’t even give the new era a chance, period, going away and won’t look back. I know there are some, like you, will never ever watch again *no matter what* but I do wonder how many of this branch there are out there.

          Myself–it’s not the way I would have gone but i’ll be at least giving Chibs and Jodi a chance. Again, I’ve got more reservations about Chibs!

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            According to Moff there isn’t anyone against it and any publication that dares to mention there is is told to shut up!

          • Rick714

            I saw him give the quote on the panel. He specifically said it was 80% in favor and then that no one had a problem with it. ? There’s a bit of a hole in his math—obviously if 80% are for it…….which is fine that you’ve got 80 for and 20 against but you can’t say no one has no problem with it.

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            Or you can go down the routef the idiot from comic-con took and just ignore everything and just call millions of dedicated and loyal fans a*seholes! No need for figures there 🙂

          • Bob James

            And there it is. The place where despite my white knuckles and gritted teeth, I could not remain silent. The panel at SDCC just referred to made me sick. Not just Moffat’s preaching his agenda. But the lack of civility of the comments. First we have the moderator, Chris Hardwick bluntly stating that anyone who isn’t crazy about the Whittaker casting is not only not a true Who fan, but also an “asshole”. Out of the group there (Capaldi, Moffat, Mackie, Gatiss, Gomez, and Lucas) only Gomez reacts as if she realizes how off base that was. No one, no one, says a word. Capaldi looked angry, even at one point staring some daggers at Hardwick. But everyone just maintains the bemused expression. Later, Moffat makes the comment that the only person who opposes the casting is a “spotty fat man” somewhere in a basement. Were we not just talking of kindness, inclusion, acceptance, etc., not so long ago? Didn’t Capaldi himself recently say that someone not embracing and displaying these qualities was not a true fan? My problem isn’t that “the other side” won (yes December 25th will mark the end of televised Doctor Who for me as well; Long live Big Finish!), that there is no grace here. For anyone giddy about this turn of events, rejoice. For anyone not giddy, a bit skeptical, keep an open mind and watch. For anyone who thinks this is a terrible mistake, don’t watch. Personally, I’m getting out of the way. I’m not going to engage in skirmishes. The level of venom, bile, and toxicity present is shameful (on both sides), and I am done.

          • Rick714

            Yeah, Hardwicke (no talent that somehow has this interviewing gig) is just throwing gasoline on the fire with his stupid comments. If people are offended and want out, that’s their prerogative. Hardwicke and the like are acting just a badly as those they accuse. I expect a bit more common sense from Moffat though.

          • Bob James

            I suppose I just expected an appeal for some civility and kindness. I’ve learned that if we show it and don’t just wait for it, we can encourage a better discourse. That no one there (especially the outgoing Doctor himself, Capaldi) made an appeal for better, really troubled me.

          • Jack Ashcraft

            Leftists are hardly know for their tolerance of other opinions, and like it or not, DW is firmly in the grip of a bunch of social Leftists who fully intend to use the show as a platform to ram their agenda down the throats of whoever will continue to watch the sad parody that is the future of DW.

          • Mark Evans

            Ever wondered how many of the Doctors really are leftists? They can’t all be. Hollywood and BBC rules seem to indicate, that if you want to continue working, you need to be a lefty.

          • Mark Evans

            Accurate? Well, sounds to do like the letters section is a carbon copy of the web based doctor who forums at the moment. There is doubt, but anyone who just says NO, those seem to get removed.
            Until I found this lovely place anyway, for now, until “them” notice me. *turns up collar*
            Oh, this was my reaction..if the link works 🙂
            https://youtu.be/lTr-Nui1tDg

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            Thankfully this site doesn’t appear to censor comments. I’ve mentioned previosly how recently the site’s actual articles appear to be particularly one-sided (in my own personal opinion). And trust me, you WILL get abuse and called names for an opinion that doesn’t conform to the liberal, feminazi PC brigade – but it is only a handful of people that give you grief. Most of us who comment here and have done for years respect each other very much despite our differing opinions so I hope you stick with us and enjpy the family (aren’t all families disfunctional to some degree anyway). I really hoped beyond hope DWM would have at LEAST printed a couple of the negative viewpoints but alas, it was not to be. It’s like everything else these days. The internet and media were SURE Scotland would vote to leave the union, they were SURE Brexit wouldn’t happen. They were SURE Hillary would be the first female President of the USA. And they were WRONG on all accounts. And do you know why? Because of the silent majority! Let the minority make all the noise and spout all the bile they want. The majority will just bide their time and make their voices heard though democratic votes or in Doctor Who’s case, viewing figures.

          • DonnaM

            I’ve said it many times, there won’t be a peep of criticism anywhere in the established media even if Chibnall produces a series of Sleep No More/Dinosaurs/Fear Her/Black Spot levels because no one will dare face the wrath of the ferociously female-first section of society. I fully expect Twitter to light up on Christmas day with comments declaring Thirteen the greatest of all the Doctors… not because she is on a minute’ s evidence, but because she is a “cause”.

            That’s the hardest thing for me to take. That Doctor Who no longer feels like a television programme but a political football.

            It won’t make a difference to me. If I enjoy it, I’ll say so. If not – well one plus point to this whole furore is that I’ve found a reason to start digging through my DVD collection to remind myself of how much wonderful history the show has. I can always fall back on that if Chibs and Whittaker don’t do it for me!

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            Or even if he produces a series of 42/The Hungry Earth – Clod Blood/Dinosaurs On A Spaceship (I know you mentioned that one)/The Power Of Three. Wow, because ALL these 4 stories make me trust his scriptwiting and decision making just as much as I do his casting choice! At least Cyberwoman was in instant classic!!! (sarcasm intended)

            I will seriously admit though that the Torchwood stories Adrift, Fragments and Exit Wounds were amongst the best of the show’s run. Even still, not a particularly good hit-rate.

            Remember the good old days when Doctor Who could be political without ruining the show – The Green Death for example. The script is what that relied on – not PC stunt-casting.

            If you watch it be sure to let me know what you think because we won’t be watching. And like you say, what better time to rifle through the DVDs. My daughter LOVES the show and although she has seen a lot of the old classics (she’s watched EVERY nu-who episode) she’s excited to watch the classics she’s not seen.

          • Vaxalon

            Funny isnt it? I was in a fury when they first did this.
            Now its a cold anger.
            This is not the problem, its just a symptom of it, and it kinda “woke” me about whats going on. So now I’ve moved beyond the doctor, to see just how truly scary whats going on politically.
            Its not “same shit, different day”, or, SSDD, if you like. I feels more like western civilisation is about to collapse. Is that too dramatic? Dunno, watch some vids about SJW’s, and then imagine them in charge.

          • Mark Evans

            And sadly, the simple answer to all of that, is that a certain group of people seem to pretty much control TV & the Internet as news outlets. So very sad, I had such hopes for the internet when younger. Which group is it anyway? SWJ’s? 3rd Wave Fems? The…Left Left Left?:)

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            Oh, all of them. Don’t forget snowflakes. And are 3rd Wave Fems the same as Feminazis? There is a worrying trend these days of a section of people either being easily offended or actively looking to be offended. And anything you say or do that they don’t like will be seen as a ‘micro-aggression’ against them and they will demand their own ‘safe space’ sheltered from the world and other’s opinions. And of course you are right, the mainstream meadia and TV is more and more controlled or bowing to this misplaced ‘PC’ agenda.

          • Mark Evans

            Ah yes the infantised snowflakes. I highly recommend watching some youtube videos about SJWs, quite the education about todays students.
            You have not lived until you have been “REEEEEEEED” sez I.
            Seriously, go find out about safe rooms, its very much like…um, waking up in a different reality.

            Laugh or cry, or both, but be scared. These people are running the media 🙂

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            Oh, trust me, I’ve watched the videos and researched it all – which makes it all the more scary! And I choose laughter over crying any day as that is what they would love for you to do the most! Laughter and mockery of idiocy is what gives you power over it.

          • Mark Evans

            SJW’s student group having a go at university advocate older man….
            “We want these halloween costumes banned because we believe they are oppressing people”
            “Why can you not consider that other people may have opinions on this?”
            “BECAUSE WERE DYING”

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            Haha, tip of the iceberg I’m afraid!

          • bar

            Yes yes yes. Ironically enough seeing Mark’s reply to you, Halloween comes from precisely that: ‘resist the devil and he will flee from you,’ and ‘evil cannot bear to be mocked.’ I think I’ll go to a halloween party as Rupert Murdoch.

          • BarryP

            Okay, I don’t know if I’m a majority but I have read this site for probably 15 years and have contributed possibly twice in that time so I have been fairly silent. But I have taken your post as inviting people who don’t normally post to post so I will. I’ve watched Doctor Who since episode 1 was first broadcast when I was 6. I remember having some difficulty dealing with Patrick Troughton for a week or two as Doctor Who was supposed to be a Grandfather and this man did not look old enough. But I got used to him to the extent that when Jon Pertwee took over I thought he was too old. And the Tardis never left Earth. What was that all about? And then Tom Baker was too young and Peter Davison was even younger. I remember thinking that they are messing around with him too much, it seemed like the Doctor could be anybody. And then the penny dropped that the Doctor could be anybody. And then I started wondering why he wasn’t. He seemed to be always white and male. Somewhere in the 80s I saw it suggested that he might regenerate as a woman and that seemed quite an exciting possibility and it made sense as he always appeared to be asexual – he never kissed his companions or had romantic liaisons so far as I could see and it made sense that he might be asexual. After that each time he regenerated as another white man I have been really disappointed. There is the build up… is it this time? And then afterwards Ive felt gutted that I have to wait another 4 years before it might happen. In the meanwhile, the character of the Doctor has changed. That kiss in The Movie I blamed on the Americans. And the Tennant series built on that and had a full blown romance going. I got used to it. It was dramatic. And the Riversong plotline I loved although I was disappointed originally Matt Smith was the Doctor after all the talk that it was going to be Paterson Joseph. At last someone who wasn’t another white man. But it wasn’t to be. And Capaldi. However, I have stuck with the show despite the changes that I wasn’t always sure of and the lack of changes that I wasn’t sure of. And I’ve enjoyed it. Bottom line is I realise that change is hard (although they have been teasing a woman doctor for 30 years now so it must have been on somebody’s radar) but as someone who has been disappointed every time the Doctor has been announced for 30 years now I say to those upset by a female doctor give it a chance. I know what you’re going through cos I’ve been going through it on the other side of the argument. At least let us have our turn without trying so desperately to poison it. Of course Doctor Who Magazine is going to be largely positive. Its job is to attract viewers to the show. I don’t suppose anyone reading the negativity in these forums is going to be encouraged to watch it and I am guessing that is the intention. I am happy to note that one of my friends who hasn’t watched it since Tennant is going to give it another chance when it comes back.

          • Mark Evans

            Hm, your ID says you joined this place, 30th august, 2017.

            I thought you said you have contributed twice on here, in 15 years?
            Well hey perhaps I’m misreading the info thingy.

            I do apologize and I hope I’m not doing you a great dis-service, but I’m just not buying your narrative. I have read about people doing this kinda thing. SWJ’s 101.

          • The Lazy Womble

            TDWC is, what, 2 years old? I do not remember how long Kasterborous had been running before that. Fifteen years?

          • BarryP

            I have managed okay. it’s one of my favourite programmes. Granted in the 60s Thunderbirds was my absolute favourite. And I used to work Saturday nights in the Colin Baker period so I had to catch up when videos came out. Also, I think it is clear from what I said that I have been hoping for a doctor that was other than a white male since the 1980s so only 30 years not 50. And I appreciate that you apologised but I am not sure what you are apologising for. What kind of thing are you talking about and what is a SWJ?

          • Mark Evans

            Ah pay no attention to that stuff, been too political of late, and seeing communists in the closet too much!
            Thank you for your story.

          • BarryP

            You are welcome. Oh and I think I had to register today because actually the site has only been around a year or two. My previous posts would have been on Kasterberous back before we all jumped ship.

          • Jack Ashcraft

            A popular DW forum (I will refrain from naming Gallifrey Base), is a horrid place to be if you aren’t simply gushing over the change. Even the forum owner insulted critics of it in what was claimed to be a reconciling message to members.

          • Philip

            “A popular DW forum (I will refrain from naming Gallifrey Base)” <– Ah Jack, that did make me laugh 😀

          • Bob James

            I’m one who won’t be watching after Christmas. I do wish the incoming team the best and every success, but this direction, to my mind is simply wrong, and the product of wrong headed thinking. In the future, if the show survives (and I trust even if this bold new direction has a fail, and an international viewing figures drop that warrants an about face, the BBC will attempt to salvage it) , I might take a peek back in under a new showrunner, and with the casting of a new Doctor (back to his traditional gender of course). But for now, as I look forward to Christmas, my mind is made up. When Peter Capaldi starts glowing, I will be going.

    • Andrew Reynolds

      It’s difficult to say whether they have been selective in the letters they have chosen because we have no way of knowing what the general consensus for people writing letters to DWM is. I could argue that ‘my experience would tell me that…’ but that’s just it – it’s my experience not a consensus. It’s hardly surprising that the ones they chose to print are positive when the cover comes with the headline ‘Time for a Lady’ — they’re hardly hedging their bets are they? Also, i ask this because i’m genuinely curious, if you knew or suspected that they would be positive — be that for a political agenda or the BBC ignoring fan consensus (again, there’s no real way of knowing what that is), why did you read them? It just seems as though you came at it with an opinion, found something to confirm that opinion knowing that in all probability that you would, and then were disappointed by it.

      • FrancoPabloDiablo

        Well even if you go by Moff’s 80/20 statistic (which is ridiculous by your own acknowledgement that it is difficult to gain a general consensus), common sense and the reactions in both real life and on this beautiful internet, or even the mag’s own statement at the end of those comments that the responses were overwhelmingly positive (?) – You cannot deny there IS still a section that vehemently disagree with this and even ou can’t think NONE wrote in. My question is for the sake of fairness why wasn’t even ONE printed that expressed the ‘unpopular’ opinion? And you are right, it is NOT surprising that all they printed were positive ones – that was kind of the point I made. What has the headline got to do with anything? I understand it and her appearing on the cover but should that then determine the mixture, or lack of, views expressed inside? And you ask out of genuine curiosity why I read them so I will answer you – it was out of genuine curiosity. I did come at it with an opinion, as I do with most things I have an opinion about. I did find something that confirmed that opinion and was only surprised and disappointed that they featured not even ONE letter that strayed off the acceptable limit of acceptance. Disappointing from a Magazine I have bought ever since 1993. Will be cancelling my subscription on Boxing Day after the show has ended. Will just endure this one-sided madness for the sake of articles and features related to the series grand finale Twice Upon A Time.

        • Andrew Reynolds

          As for my own experience, no I’m not denying there are negative opinions, I never indicated that I was. I’m just tempering my experiences to the medium from which I have received them. The headline is indicative of the editorial stance which governs everything that goes into the magazine which includes the letters. If the magazine chooses to respond positively to the news, then the letters will be positive. It’s then entirely down to them whether they publish any dissenting views but, of course, they will be governed by their stance. Hence the selection of letters that started from a negative but now feel positive about the news. Then again, it would be bizarre for what is ostensibly a tie-in magazine for a TV show to suddenly bite the hand that feeds it by publishing negative opinions. Even though DWM has historically blurred the line between fanzine and magazine, it’s a little out of its remit now.

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            Censoring a secton of fandom and mostly good people is never a good thing though.

          • Andrew Reynolds

            Well we cannot vouch for whether their good people or not. We can assume but I don’t know the tone of the letters not published or the intent behind them. Some might raise good points, some might just dismiss Jodie Whittaker entirely. I don’t know and wouldn’t want to assume what percentage of them fell into either category.
            As for censorship, they’ve not undermined journalistic integrity because, as I say, it’s a tie-in magazine designed to say positive things about Doctor Who. It’s market bias is pretty clear. If anything, it’s smack on the message of approaching the show with an optimistic, enthusiastic outlook. Other sources are available if you want something that will perhaps address that section of fandom.

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            “It’s a tie-in magazine designed to say positive things about Doctor Who”

            And I can agree with you and understand that when it comes to the articles and features. Every time a new preview of an episode comes out obviously they are trying and going to sell it and big it up as much as possible – regardless of how brilliant or rubbish the episodes may turn out! BUT, the letters page is the viewer’s and reader’s outlet and space to voice their opinions – just like the very comment’s section on this site – it has nothing to do at all with journalistic integrity. If certain unpopular opinions are been intentionally censored for WHATEVER reason in such a place it is still censorship. You may not like my opinion but at least I am allowed to make it and have it be seen here.

          • Andrew Reynolds

            The letters page isn’t a democracy. It isn’t censorship either because they’re under no obligation to publish every opinion and no fan should feel that entitled. There must be some acceptance that if the majority think one way, DWM is likely to follow suit and that means certain opinions will be favoured over others.
            Historically, it may have borrowed the Marvel model of addressing the creative talent directly but that model has long gone.
            The letters page is reflection of the content of the magazine. If you know the letters are chosen by a magazine who appear to not want to engage in that side of the debate because they can only see the positive in her casting, of course those letters are going to reflect that and therefore it becomes a matter of reinforcing that same journalistic integrity and bias.
            We are not the same as DWM because, for better or worse, we have no editorial stance – we let our individual writers express their opinions and hopefully our readers can see that no one point of view speaks for the site.

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            “There must be some acceptance that if the majority think one way, DWM is likely to follow suit and that means certain opinions will be favoured over others”

            OK, favoured over others, fine, but not at the expense of the other opinions being ignored and omitted completely. What was there, about twenty-odd leters on the subject and still not one that dared to say anything other than what was editorially selected and decided as acceptable? And no, I disagree, as I stated before it is basically a comments section like this where the fans get to voice their opinions. I seriously can’t comprehend why you think any respectable magazine would intentionally and blatantly preclude some opinions – surely it it isn’t a dictatorship. A suggestion for the Magazine in future: why don’t they mention that you can only write in and voice an opinion as long as it is acceptable to them and fits with their propoganda. That should do it, at least then people would know and wouldn’t waste their time writing something that was non-conformist.

          • Mark Evans

            Sounds like an echo chamber to me. But hey I guess impartiality is a bad thing. I seem to recall magazines used to do that, to establish “trust” with their readership.

          • Jack Ashcraft

            They’ve done so at the official DW YouTube channel as well, invoking BBC “editorial guidelines” as their defense. They didn’t simply delete bad language posts, but an entire section of reasoned protests.

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            Have you read some of the letters from the late 80’s issues? They had no problem with publishing readers’ JNT-bashing opinions and unhappy viewpoints and the like back then. Wonder what is so different now? …oh, that’s right, anybody with a view other than those who rule are censored. You’d think we live in North Korea!

        • Jack Ashcraft

          It is an attempt to control the public’s perception of the reaction to the change. Desperate, but typical.

  • Mark Evans

    I have not read it Franco, but I don’t even have to guess which letters they did not print.
    You just cannot trust the press these days, even if the series crashes and burns, they will never admit it, well, not until it no longer matters anyway.
    I suppose the only real true indications to look for, is to see if DW sites, magazines and suchlike, stop making money. Or start to go under, whatever.

    • Philip

      I really hope DW sites don’t go under, Mark! 😉

      • Mark Evans

        Well im just trying to figure a way to accurately gage how the show does now, that cant be faked.

        • Philip

          Don’t worry; only joking 🙂

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            You know it aint cool to joke anymore though, right? That could be construed as a micro-aggression! Or even worse sexist/racist/homophic/bigotted etc.. Tick as applicable.

          • Mark Evans

            Dude, when you mention Micro-aggressions, could you PLEASE do a trigger warning first?
            Well, perhaps a trigger warning that your going to do a trigger warning too, just to cover all the bases.

          • FrancoPabloDiablo

            Dude, when you’re going to warn me about mentioning micro-aggressions could you PLEASE do a trigger warning first?
            Well, perhaps a trigger warning that you’re about to send me a trigger warning about me sending a trigger warning about mentioning micro-aggressions first, just to cover all bases. 🙂

          • Andrew Reynolds

            I could punch down and deride trigger warnings but when they’re built on compassion and have helped victims of sexual abuse not have to relive the worst moments of their lives without any warning – with the PTSD, anxiety, depression, and self-harm that those moments may result it – I tend not to let the extreme examples of the concept being abused dictate the conversation about them. We’re better than this.

  • reTARDISed

    Avoid this issue of DWM if you don’t like the news about Whittaker. There’s an interesting sentence in one of the interviews (I can’t recall which, off-hand), where a male respondent finds himself on “the wrong side of history” if he does not like the casting of JW. He goes on to suggest that if the loss of a male role-model for little boys is a bad thing, then someone should create another male role-model with qualities of intellectualism, non-violence, etc Reading between the lines, it looks as though (deep down) he really pines for a male Doctor.

    • FrancoPabloDiablo

      When you are subscribed to it and it gets delivered to your door anyway it is hard to avoid it. As I said somewhere else I was so close to cancelling my subscribtion there and then. BUT, we still have the last Doctor Who episode to look forward to later this year and I don’t want to miss any articles or features relating to that. Will cancel my subscription on Boxing Day.

    • Jack Ashcraft

      Why? So the BBC can make him a woman at some point in the future simply to score political points? Why not create a female role model with those qualities to begin with? Oh wait, they have, but the Doctor just had to be changed for the agenda.

  • Peter Rabytt

    Hi friends. I have recently really tried to stay balanced and engage in measured respectful conversation with contributors, allow for the strong feelings people have……and keep things Doctor Who focused and non political……but for me some of the stuff below is getting directly political and includes name calling that is ramping up and up. I don’t want to be part of a site that gets sidelined into intolerance and the bashing of any groups, whoever they are. I am therefore going to leave you to it and bow out for a while. Be seeing you.

    • FrancoPabloDiablo

      Shame you feel that way. And I genuinely hope you change your mind. You are the 2nd after Dr. Moo to run away for differences of opinion. God knows I’ve been called all sorts of names and accused of things I’m not but I take it on the chin and stick around. But that is your decision. All views welcome here, whether you like them or not, whether people like yours or not. Again, I ask you to reconsider your decision.

    • Andrew Reynolds

      Thank you for this Peter. I very sorry to read that you won’t be visiting the site for the foreseeable future. I’ve always enjoyed your valued, engaging comments on both my own and my fellow writers work and the site will be a lesser place without them. I genuinely hope that you will return but i understand your reasons for taking a step back from the site. As for your concerns about comments becoming directly political or engaging in ‘name calling’ and ‘intolerance’, i’d just like to remind everyone engaged on this page that this is a Doctor Who site. If you have any political axe to grind or disagree with anyone who has commented on this page please keep it to yourself. We are tolerate of all voices on the political spectrum but when those comments descend into singling out any group or any one person, then those engaged in derailing the discourse will be banned.

    • The Lazy Womble

      Peter, I wish you’d stay and be one of the voices of balance and reason.

    • DonnaM

      Peter I’m sorry to read this – particularly as your comments have been respectful, sympathetic and apolitical. At a time when extreme positions are being taken on all sides, moderate voices are needed more than ever.
      There is a small section of this community vehemently opposed to the casting of a woman as the Doctor. There’s a small section vehemently in favour. I’m in the middle: I would have *preferred* a male actor cast – I’m a traditionalist and if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. However, I will give the next series a try.
      What I will not be is forced away from expressing my opinion by the noise made by others. That’s allowing intolerance its victory and if there’s one thing I cannot tolerate, it’s intolerance.
      It’s difficult because there are small sections on the far extremes of every argument. They tend to be the ones who shout loudest – and the ones I listen to least.

      • ColeBox

        Sadly, whenever I write any on-line comments it takes twice as long as it should as I am always aware of not trying to cause offence or upset to anyone else. In short, I pretty much censor myself! But why should I? Well, I’m someone who doesn’t like upsetting people in real life, so I like to think that I treat people, reading my posts, as if they are speaking in front of me. But still, why should I have to censor myself? I’m a grown man! Experience mainly… DonnaM, were you a contributor to the old BBC Doctor Who forum in the early 2000s? Even all those years ago, say the wrong thing and receive a virtual beating! It really wasn’t a nice place to be at times. Even back then, some other forums I belonged to would descend into a punch-up very quickly. Sarcasm and bile seemed to be the attempted way to win an argument. All these years later, none of them have learned.

        In recent months, I have also investigated the state of debate and have come to the same conclusion, but I would add one thing to the mix: dogma. Most, if not all, of the type of people you describe can only see life through the dogma of their political conviction (or what I call “dogma glasses”). This then leads to the loss of common-sense and logic and the ability to look at a subject objectively. I believe that this is something that society as a whole is losing the ability to do and I think that’s a very frightening situation.

        However, this site was one of the only places that I dared to say openly that my knee-jerk reaction, of Jodie Whittaker’s casting, was that “my favourite programme had been confiscated”. I, too, feel that I’m a traditionalist. I didn’t get flamed. In turn, I didn’t lay into anyone else over their view. And rightly so.

        • DonnaM

          I do exactly the same – even here, the only Doctor Who site where I’ve ever felt it’s safe to voice an unpopular opinion I find myself writing, then going back to amend in case I upset someone. It’s not a good way to feel, but I was reared to try to rub along and not upset other people, so… it’s the safest thing I can do, for my own protection and others’!

          What I refuse to do is hold silence because then the dogmatic have won. That would make for an even scarier world in my view.

          • daft

            Save your sanity #cultbox

    • DonnaWho?

      I’m very sorry to hear that you are leaving because you are a fair and balanced commenter, however I do understand how you feel. Ever since Dr. Moo left I too have struggled with whether or not to continue visiting DWC. The extreme tones of some conversations has at times been very hard to read. But I will stick to it for now in memory of you and Dr. Moo. Hopefully someday this site will return to Doctor Who and it’s merits and not a political forum.

      • Philip

        Hey DonnaWho? Sorry to hear you’ve been thinking about leaving the DWC. It would be a massive shame if you did, and you really would be missed. I know news articles recently have become something of a political forum, but I hope our reviews and features generally steer clear and instead celebrate the show as a whole. We’ve got a lot of themes I’m very excited about coming in the future, so I hope there’s something for you, going forwards (and yes, I hate the phrase “going forwards”, but it seemed right there!).

    • bar

      Make it a SHORT while please Peter; a refreshing break from the wrangling. Then come back and be part of the general positivity, good will and respect that this site exemplifies. If the rest of us leave, those who take your place can only be worse: ‘trolls are like nature; they abhor a vacuum.’

      • The Lazy Womble

        That’s why trolls’ homes are so dusty: they abhor a vacuum 😉

        • The Lazy Womble

          Our job is to resist the trolls and throw them off bridges. We are the Billy Goats Gruff lol.

    • Philip

      Hi Peter. I can’t really add anything to what Andy, and other commenters, have noted below, but I just wanted to say how sad I am to know you’re leaving the DWC for a while. I’ve always enjoyed your comments and know you’re an important part of the community. So yeah, I’m gutted you feel this way. If it helps, we’ve got plenty of themes coming up that focus on the history of the show, so please do drop in to see what’s coming. To be honest, I don’t know how to make things right on news articles – we don’t want to censor people unless they’re being offensive, but equally, we don’t want the comments to all be negative. I do feel that we get a more balanced community than most DW sites, and that’s due to people like you, Peter – the people who are positive and reasoned. Please don’t be a stranger. Thanks 🙂

      • DonnaM

        Now that really is positive news, Philip – I for one look forward to those themes you mention!

  • The Lazy Womble

    I have glanced at the letters pages in DWM and they don’t strike me as all happily accepting the new casting. True, I couldn’t see any predictions that the programme is now over. But why would I? There are a lot of people excited about the choice and I am happy for them. There were also contributors advocating a wait and see attitude and that is much more where I stand. And can I just repeat the words of so many others? Peter Rabytt and DonnaWho? You are both well-balanced and intelligent commenters and contribute to an atmosphere in here that is generally calm, polite and tolerant.